On the basis of extensive studies, Dr Robinson offers a schedule of dates when the books of the New Testament were written that contradicts the consensus of generations of Bible scholars. The thesis he defends (ound to be highly debated worldwide) is that every one of the New Testament books was written before A.D. 70 -- the single most datable and climactic event of the period. This event, the fall of Jerusalem, is never once mentioned in New Testament writings as a past fact.

One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period -- the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple -- is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark. (13)

Thus John A.T. Robinson begins chapter 2, "The Significance of 70", of his Redating the New Testament.

Robinson ends with several points in chapter 11, "Conclusions and Corollaries," of which I highlight just two here. First, "We may start with the fact, which I confess I did not appreciate before beginning the investigation, of how little evidence there is for the dating of any of the New Testament writings...It is surprising to be made to realize that there is only one reasonably secure absolute date (and that within a year or so either way) in the life of St Paul, which in turn can be used to fix the chronology of his writings. And this -- that of the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia -- relates not to any statement of Paul himself but to a minor incident recorded of him in Acts" (336). Second is a quite long quote from a non-academic source (A.H.N. Green-Armytage, John Who Saw, 1952) that Robinson notes has been used by others before him, a portion of which i quote here:

There is a world -- I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit -- which is not the world in which I live. In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance. But in that world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from facts but always from somebody else's version of the same story...(356)

Robinson continues the long quote, but his point is already made. The story of the birth of the New Testament, which includes dates of composition, has often been conjecture posing as Neutestamentler dogma.

In between, Robinson addresses each book (or group of books) of the New Testament. His work is scholarly, heavily footnoted (major plus for the editors and publishers! See my footnote/endnote rant elsewhere), and draws upon a broad understanding not just of the exegetical tradition but also the historical context. Robinson has been criticized as heretical in some circles -- even as an "atheist" (Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist: "But it's not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the "Death of God" movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65" (243). But I digress) -- and despite this accusation, there is no denying his intimate familiarity not just with the New Testament writings themselves, but also the history of its criticism.

I give five stars to Redating; it is required reading for anyone interested in the historical development of the New Testament. ( )

Redating the New Testament is a cunning book, in which Robinson hides his chronological theory, substantiated with the heavyweights of biblical scholarship, behind a facade of light-footed intellectual frivolity. On the one hand he brilliantly exposes the meagre arguments behind the traditional dating of the New Testament writings, but on the other he replaces this traditional dating with a new theory that in my opinion is even weaker than the chronology he questions.

The core of Robinson’s theory is a very early and concentrated dating of the New Testament writings, roughly between 50 and 70 CE, before or at the latest during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE) . Robinson states that all the New Testament writings must have been written before the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE because these crucial war events are not unambiguously described as past events anywhere in the New Testament. This thesis is diametrically opposed to the opinion of many biblical scholars, who consider the veiled mentions of the war in the synoptic Apocalypse and elsewhere in the gospels as prophecies-after-the-facts and therefore as references to the war. This interpretation of the doom prophecies are the basis for dating most New Testament writings after the end of the war in 70 CE, the four gospels being the most important of them.

In fact Robinson’s theory stands or falls with this ‘unambiguous description’ of the destruction of the Temple and/or the fall of Jerusalem in the New Testament. In my opinion this unambiguous description is present, reducing Robinson’s theory to futility. This description, however, is worded in the apocalyptic writing style, and this combination of an unambiguous message and a subversive writing style is not the easiest one. The apocalyptic writing style was used by suppressed people to hide important information from their ruthless oppressors, in this case by the early Christians to conceal their subversive message for the Romans.

The crucial word in the synoptic Apocalypse is the Greek θλιψις, which is usually translated as (a period of) tribulation, but which is more exactly translated as a catastrophic event. Θλιψις more specifically is the apocalyptic code word for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for example in Mark 13:24. The effect of the catastrophe, the production of an enormous cloud of smoke, is described in the same verse, in this way supporting the ‘catastrophic event’ translation instead of the ‘period of tribulation’ translation. Also in Revelation (chapter 11 in the first place) and the Didache (particularly the apocalyptic final chapter) the final events of the war are described as past events (and in all these writings the parousia of the Christ is connected with these cataclysmic war events.)

After chapter 2 ‘The Significance of 70’ Robinson’s main thesis had already faded away. Nevertheless I enjoyed the chapter on the epistle of James later on, the early dating of which in my opinion is correct, with the two ‘Jesus’ mentions as interpolations.

Redating the New Testament is a cunning book, in which Robinson hides his chronological theory, substantiated with the heavyweights of biblical scholarship, behind a facade of light-footed intellectual frivolity. On the one hand he brilliantly exposes the meagre arguments behind the traditional dating of the New Testament writings, but on the other he replaces this traditional dating with a new theory that in my opinion is even weaker than the chronology he questions.

The core of Robinson’s theory is a very early and concentrated dating of the New Testament writings, roughly between 50 and 70 CE, before or at the latest during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE) . Robinson states that all the New Testament writings must have been written before the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE because these crucial war events are not unambiguously described as past events anywhere in the New Testament. This thesis is diametrically opposed to the opinion of many biblical scholars, who consider the veiled mentions of the war in the synoptic Apocalypse and elsewhere in the gospels as prophecies-after-the-facts and therefore as references to the war. This interpretation of the doom prophecies are the basis for dating most New Testament writings after the end of the war in 70 CE, the four gospels being the most important of them.

In fact Robinson’s theory stands or falls with this ‘unambiguous description’ of the destruction of the Temple and/or the fall of Jerusalem in the New Testament. In my opinion this unambiguous description is present, reducing Robinson’s theory to futility. This description, however, is worded in the apocalyptic writing style, and this combination of an unambiguous message in a subversive writing style is not the easiest one. The apocalyptic writing style was used by suppressed people to hide their information from their ruthless oppressors, in this case by the early Christians to conceal their subversive message for the Romans.

The crucial word in the synoptic Apocalypse is the Greek θλιψις, which is usually translated as (a period of) tribulation, but which is more exactly translated as a catastrophic event. Θλιψις more specifically is the apocalyptic code word for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for example in Mark 13:24. The effect of the catastrophe, the production of an enormous cloud of smoke, is described in the same verse, in this way supporting the ‘catastrophic event’ translation instead of the ‘period of tribulation’ translation. Also in Revelation (chapter 11 in the first place) and the Didache (particularly the apocalyptic final chapter) the ultimate war events are described as past events (and in all these writings the parousia of the Christ is connected with these cataclysmic war events.)

After his chapter 2 ‘The Significance of 70’ Robinson’s main thesis had already faded away. Nevertheless I enjoyed the chapter on the epistle of James later on, the early dating of which in my opinion is correct, with the two ‘Jesus’ mentions as interpolations. ( )

A thoughtful critique of the system of dating the New Testament used by the higher criticism school of Biblical studies. Basically higher criticism discounts the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem and dates all books that reference it as later than 70 C.E. Robinson argues that there is no reason for this late dating, especially by people who accept that Jesus was divine. Even I, as a non-believer, don't think it's such a stretch to think that Jesus or the gospel writers might have predicted that the Roman-Jewish detente would fall apart in a generation and end in some kind of disaster.

The fact is that there simply isn't enough information to reliably date the books of the New Testament within the framework of early Christianity. I see no particular reason to accept the myth promulgated by higher criticism over Robinson's. ( )

http://stromata.tripod.com/id119.htm ( )